Whose language is it anyway? PWD is a clumsy usage and says everything to me
about what is and always was wrong with American Politics, no guts since
they kicked the Brits out.
I am not bending my language to suit the US dialect variation I think the US
needs to appreciate that there *is* a difference in the way these things are
expressed and just because it is acceptable on one side of the pond it is
not acceptable world wide any more than second rate TV is - but that is
another thing because we have plenty of our own nowadays :(
Same Bollox about autism, but at least US autists are in the lead in
reclaiming the right to call ourselves what we will. I have refused to
conform with my Uni's PC bollox on this and write it the way I mean it.
The UK did have the same infection of people first language a couple of
decades ago too, for the same reasons, however some of us got over it.
The problem for me is that this pseudo politeness is inflicted by the non
disabled hegemony on us, it is a language from above and I will not have it.
Damn it if an American cannot realise that I am UK English and writing UK
English and adjust what is the world coming to. The rot is with the
(expletives deleted) US academic publishers, if more than a few journals
went out of print the world would not be less informed we would be freer,
hopefully this recession will have some worthy casualties.
Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:DISABILITY-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrea Shettle
> Sent: 09 March 2009 19:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Terminology: disabled students v students with disabilities?
>
> In my own blog site (We Can Do, http://wecando.wordpress.com) I try to
> alternate between "people with disabilities" and "disabled people."
>
> This is because people in different countries seem to have different
> preferences. The preference for "disabled people" as far as I can
> detect seems to be very dominantly and almost uniquely a British/UK
> phenomenon that I don't think I have really seen elsewhere. In the US
> and in Spanish speaking countries, the preference is very clearly for
> "people with disabilities" ("personas con discapacidades" in Spanish).
>
> I have found that people from the UK sometimes misperceive this as
> meaning that the social model has not caught on elsewhere, or is not
> understood elsewhere. This is false. Please do not confuse LINGUISTIC
> choices with the MODEL of disability that you are accustomed to
> associating with them (whatever your cultural context). We DO very
> much have the social model in the US, in that it is very much
> understood by most members of the disability community here that most
> of our barriers to participation in society come from barriers in the
> environment, rather than in our impairments. This understanding has
> formed a critical basis for much of the advocacy movement here and has
> informed some of the more enlightened legislation, such as the
> Americans with Disabilities Act (equivalent of the UK Disabilities
> Discrimination Act). It's just that much of the language that we have
> developed around the discussion of these concepts has evolved along a
> different path than it did in the UK. (Sometime it might be
> fascinating and enlightening if someone more knowledgeable in both
> cultures were to do a historical and etymological investigation of how
> and why this came about...perhaps something co-written and
> co-researched by one US researcher and one UK researcher ... but I
> digress).
>
> In the US, the emphasis is on "person first" language -- the idea being
> that the PERSON is more important than the impairment. Except that,
> some people perceive the word "impairment" itself to be offensive, as
> if suggesting that the person themselves is "impaired" for having an
> impairment. The word "disabled" is also considered very offensive in
> many US circles. It is simply not interpreted as being connected to
> disabling factors in the environment, as it is in the UK. In the US
> context, "disabled" typically carries the connotation that the person
> him/herself is impaired, incapable, etc., and that the
> impairment/disability takes precedence over being a person. Thus, it
> is perceived as a very dehumanizing term. So, many Americans with
> disabilities find the term "disabled" about as abhorrent as many
> disabled UK people find the term "people with disabilities."
>
> Personally, I understand the philosophy behind both terms well enough
> to feel comfortable using either one . When writing for a
> predominantly British audience, I typically use "disabled people" and
> have no qualms about that. When writing for predominantly US
> audiences, I use "people with disabilities," and for international
> audiences I try to remember to use both in alternation.
>
> I agree that "disabled people" is shorter and easier to write. For
> international audiences, I do sometimes tend to use that a little more
> often just because of that.
>
> Andrea Shettle, MSW
> [log in to unmask]
> http://wecando.wordpress.com
>
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
